history and science in anthropology: a reply

8/17/2019 History and Science in Anthropology: A Reply

1/6

Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

History and Science in Anthropology: A ReplyAuthor(s): Franz BoasSource: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1936), pp. 137-141Published by: on behalf of theWiley American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/662558Accessed: 17-05-2015 16:27 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/

info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Sun, 17 May 2015 16:27:26 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/stable/662558http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/662558http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/6

DISCUSSION

AND

CORRESPONDENCE

HISTORY

AND

SCIENCE

IN ANTHROPOLOGY:

A

REPLY

It was interesting to me to read Dr Kroeber's analysis not only of my scientific

work

but

also

of

my

personality.1

I

may perhaps misinterpret

both. Nevertheless

I

wish

to

express my complete

disagreement

with

his

interpretation.

It

is

quite

true that as

a

young

man I

devoted

my

time to the

study

of

physics

and

geography.

In 1887

I

tried

to define

my

position

in

regard

to these

subjects,2

giving

expression

to

my

consciousness

of the

diversity

of

their

fundamental

viewpoints.

I

aligned

myself clearly

with those

who

are

motivated

by

the affective

appeal

of

a

phenome-

non that

impresses

us as a

unit, although

its

elements

may

be irreducible

to

a

com-

mon

cause.

In

other

words

the

problem

that

attracted me

primarily

was

the

in-

telligent understanding of a complex phenomenon. When from geography my in-

terest

was

directed to

ethnology,

the

same interest

prevailed.

To

understand a

phenomenon

we have

to know not

only

what

it

is,

but also how

it

came

into

being.

Our

problem

is historical.

Dr

Kroeber

suggests

as

the

distinctive

eature

of

the

historical

approach,

n

any

field,

not the

dealing

with time se-

quences,though

that almost

inevitably

crops

out

when

historical

mpulses

are

genuine

and

strong;

but an

endeavorat

descriptive

ntegration.

...

Process

n

history

is

a

nexus

among

phenomena

reated as

phenomena,

not

a

thing

to

be

sought

out and

extractedfrom

phe-

nomena.

I confess that to me this does not give any sense. We have descriptions of culture

more

or

less

adequately

understood. These are valuable material.

They

yield,

if

well

done,

most

illuminating

material

in

regard

to the

working

of

the

culture,

by

which

I

mean the life of

the

individual

as

controlled

by

culture and the

effect

of

the

individual

upon

culture. But

they

are not

history.

For

historical

interpretation

the

descriptive

material has to be

handled

in

other

ways.

For

this work

archaeologi-

cal,

biological, linguistic,

and

ethnographic comparisons

furnish more or

less

ade-

quate

leads.

If Dr

Kroeber

calls

my

first

piece

of

ethnological

work,

The

Central

Eskimo,

(written

in

1885),

historical,

I

fail

to

understand him. It

is a

description

based

on

intimate

knowledge

of

the

daily

life

of

the

people,

with bad

gaps,

due

to

my

ignorance

of

problems.

The

only

historical

points

made are based

on a

comparison

of the

tribe studied

with

other Eskomo

tribes

and

with the Indians of

the

Mackenzie

basin,

on a

careful

study

of

evidences

of earlier

habitations of

the

Eskimo,

and

a

guess

as

to

the

course

of

their

early

migrations.

The rest

is

description pure

and

simple.

If

in

later

writings

I

did

not

stress

geographical

conditions

the reason must

be

sought

in an

exaggerated

belief

in

the

importance

of

geographical

determinants

with

which I

started

on

my

expedition

in

1883-84 and

the

thorough

disillusion-

ment

in

regard

to

their

significance

as

creative elements

in

cultural

life.

I

shall

1

American

Anthropologist,

Vol.

37, pp. 539-69,

1935.

2 The

Study

of

Geography

Science,

Vol.

9,

pp.

137-41,

1887).

137


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/6

138

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[N.

s.,

38,

1936

always

continue to consider them as relevant in

limiting

and

modifying

exist-

ing

cultures,

but

it

so

happened

that

in

my

later

field

work

this

question

has

never

come

to the fore as

particularly

enlightening.

May I remind Dr Kroeber of one little incident that illustrates my interest in the

sociological

or

psychological

interpretation

of

cultures,

an

aspect

that is

now-a-

days

called

by

the

new

term functionalism.

I had

asked

him to

collect

Arapaho

traditions

without

regard

to

the

true forms

of

ancient tales and

customs,

the

dis-

covery

of

which

dominated,

at that

time,

the

ideas of

many

ethnologists.

The

re-

sult

was a

collection

of

stories some

of which

were

extremely

gross.

This

excited

the wrath of

Alice

C.

Fletcher

who wanted to

know

only

the ideal

Indian,

and

hated what she

called

the

stable

boy

manners

of

an

inferior

social

group.

Since

she

tried

to discredit

Dr

Kroeber's work

on

this basis

I

wrote a little

article

on

The

Ethnological Significance of Esoteric Doctrines 3 in which I tried to show the

functional interrelation between exoteric

and

esoteric

knowledge,

and

empha-

sized

the

necessity

of

knowing

the habits

of

thought

of

the common

people

as

ex-

pressed

in

story

telling.

Similar

considerations

regarding

the

inner

structural rela-

tions

between various

cultural

phenomena

are contained in

a

contribution

on

the

secret

societies

of the

Kwakiutl

in

the

Anniversary

Volume

for

Adolf

Bastian

(1896)

and from

another

angle

in

a

discussion

of

the

same

subject

in the

reports

on

the

Fourteenth

Congress

of

Americanists,

1904

(published 1906);

the latter

more

from

the

angle

of

the

establishment

of a

pattern

of

cultural

behavior. These

I

should

call

contributions

to cultural

history dealing

with

the

ways

in

which the whole of an

indigenous

culture

in

its

setting among

neighboring

cultures

builds

up

its

own

fabric.

In an

attempt

to

follow

the

history

of a

culture

back into earlier times we

are

confined to

indirect

evidence

and

it is our

duty

to use it

with

greatest

circumspec-

tion.

Dr

Kroeber

accuses

me of not

being

interested

in

these

questions.

I

do not

know,

then, why

I should

have used

years

of

my

life

in

trying

to

unravel

the

histori-

cal

development

of

social

organization,

secret

societies,

the

spread

of

art

forms,

of

folktales on

the

Northwest

Coast of

America.

I

think that such

a

detailed

study

is

worth

while

not

only

for

its

own

sake

but

because

it illuminates also

general

aspects

of the history of mankind, for here we see the totality of cultural phenomena re-

flected

in

the

individual

culture. Is it

that

painstaking

work of

this

kind

does not

seem to Dr

Kroeber worth

while,

but

that

it

requires

the

flight

of

an

unbridled

imagination

to

have

his

approval?

I

cannot

understand

in

any

other

way

his

praise

of a

public

lecture which I

gave

as

President of

the New York

Academy

of

Sciences

on

The

History

of

the

American

Race, 4 guarding

my

statement

however,

at

the

very

beginning by

saying

that

I

should

give

my

fancy

freer rein than

I

ordinarily

permit

myself.

When

as

early

as

1895.

I

made a

careful

analysis

of

the then

avail-

able

material,

showing

the

relations of

Northwest Coast

mythologies

among

them-

3

Science,

n.s.,

Vol.

16,

pp. 872-74,

1902.

*

Annals

of the New

York

Academy

of

Sciences,

Vol.

21,

pp.

177-83,

1912.

6

Indianische

Sagen

von

der

Nord-Pacifischen

Kiiste

Amerikas

Berlin,

1895).




4/6

DISCUSSION

AND

CORRESPONDENCE 139

selves

and to other American

an.d

Old World

areas,

the

object

was to

demonstrate

historical relations.

Perhaps

I did

not

go

far

enough

for

Dr

Kroeber

in

establishing

the center

of

origin

of

each

element;

but there I

balk,

because I believe this

can be

done in

exceptional

cases

only.

The fact that a

phenomenon

has its

highest

de-

velopment

at

a

certain

point

does

not

prove

that it

had

its

origin

there. The belief

in

this,

which

I

consider

an

unjustified

assumption,

and a

more

lighthearted weigh-

ing

of

evidence differentiates

our

methods.

In a

conversation

Dr

Kroeber

admitted

that

I

wanted

a

high degree

of

probability

for a

conclusion,

while he was satisfied

with much

less.

That is

an

Epicurean position,

not that

of

a modern

scientist.

I am

sorry

that

I cannot

acknowledge

as

fair

the

summary

of

my

work. It

is

true that

I

have

done little

archaeological

work

myself. My

own

only

contribution

was the

establishment

of

the

sequence

of

archaic,

Teotihuacan

type

and

Aztec

in

Mexico, I believe except Dall's work on the Aleutian Islands, the first stratigraphic

work in

North

America;

but

in

the

plan

of

the

Jesup Expedition

I

assigned

an im-

portant

part

to

archaeological

work

which

in

the careful

hands

of

Harlan

I.

Smith

gave

important

results

on

Fraser

River

showing

the

invasion

of

inland culture.

If

farther

north

it

did not

give any

results

the cause was

not lack

of

interest

but

failure

to find

significant

material.

I

may

also claim

to

have

kept

before

our

scientific

public

year

after

year

the

necessity

of

careful

archaeological

work

in

northern

Alaska,

which

has

unfortunately

been

deviated

from

its

main

object

by

sensational

artistic

finds,

although

the

main

problem

remains

that

of

the occurrence

or non-

occurrence

of

pre-Eskimo types

in

the

Bering

Sea

region.

In

regard

to

linguistic

work

Dr

Kroeber's criticism

does

not

seem to me

to

hit

the

mark

at all.

Relationship

of

languages

is

a

powerful

means

of

historical research.

It

remains

equally

valid,

whether

we

assume

purely

genetic relationship

or

whether

we ask ourselves

whether

by

contact

languages

may

exert

far

reaching

mutual

influences.

This

question

is

important

for

the

interpretation

of

relationships

but

has

absolutely

nothing

to

do

with

a

historic

or

non-historic

approach.

If

it can

be

settled

we

shall

know

how

to

interpret

historically

the

linguistic

data. That

I am

here as elsewhere

opposed

to

ill

substantiated

guesses,

goes

without

saying,

but

has

nothing

to

do

with

the

case.

Here also

a

40%

possibility

is

no

satisfactory proof

for

me.

Dr

Kroeber's

strictures

on

my

book

on

Primitive

Art are

entirely

unintelligi-

ble to

me. He

says style

has

not been treated. There is

a whole

chapter

on

style

and

one

specific

one

on

Northwest

Coast

style

intended

as a

sample

of

treatment

of

the

problem.

Maybe

Dr

Kroeber

has an

idea

of his

own of

what

style is,

as he has an

idea

of

his

own of what

history

is.

He

reproaches

me

for

not

having

written

on

the

history

of

Northwest

Coast

style. Unfortunately

there

are

no

data

that

throw

any

light

on

its

development.

It

appears

in

full bloom

and

disappears

under the

on-

slaught

of

white

contact. The

slight

local differences

and

the relation between

the

arts of the Eskimo and other neighboring tribes do not seem to me to throw any

light

on

the

subject.

Does he

want me

to

write its

history

without

such

data?

Am

I

to

repeat

the

wild

guesses

of

Schurtz?

I

have never

made

the

statement that

history

is

legitimate

and

proper,

but

his-




5/6

140

AMERICAN

ANTHROPOLOGIST

[N.

s., 38,

1936

torical reconstruction unsound

and

sterile.

As a

matter

of

fact,

all

the

history

of

primitive people

that

any ethnologist

has ever

developed

is

reconstruction

and

can-

not be

anything

else. There

is,

however,

a

difference between

cautious

reconstruc-

tion based on ascertained data and

sweeping generalizations

that must remain more

or

less

fanciful.

I do

recognize quite

a

number of

very

fundamental

general

histori-

cal

problems

in

regard

to which I have more or

less

decided

opinions,

such

as

the

distribution

and

relationships

of

races,

the

relation

of

America to

the Old

World,

that

of Africa to

Asia,

and so on. It

depends entirely upon

the evidence how

strongly

I

hold

to

these

opinions.

It has

happened

to

me

too

often that

a

suggestion

cau-

tiously

made has been

repeated

by

others as

though

I had

pronounced

it

as

a

set

dogma.

Now

as to

the

use of statistics in

ethnology

as a

tool

of

research.

Being

somewhat

familiar with the difficulties of statistical work I do not believe that it is a safe guide

in

ethnological inquiry.

I

believe

I

was the

first

after

Tylor's

discussion of

18886

to

try

it on the field of

mythology,

and if at

that

time the correlation

method had

been

as much abused as it is

now,

and since I had not

yet

understood its

dangers,

I

might

have established some nice

coefficients

of

correlation

for

elements

of

my-

thology.7

The data of

ethnology

are not of such character that

they

can

be

expressed

by

mathematical formulas

so that results are obtained which are in

any way

more

convincing

than those secured

by

simpler ways

of

numerical

comparison.

Behind

these

always

loom the unanswered

questions

in

how

far

the

materials

enumerated

are

really comparable,

or

in

other

types

of

problems,

like

Tylor's,

in

how

far

they

are

independent.

I

regret

that

Dr

Kroeber

also does

not

see the

aim

I

have

in

mind

in

physical

anthropology.

We

talk

all

the

time

glibly

of

races

and

nobody

can

give

us a

defi-

nite

answer

to the

question

what

constitutes

a

race.

The

first

stimulus to

my

active

participation

in

work

in

physical

anthropology

was due

to

G.

Stanley

Hall and

to

the

atmosphere

of Clark

University,

and

had

little to

do

with

racial

questions,

rather

with the

influences

of

environment

upon

growth.

When

I

turned

to

the

consideration

of racial

problems

I

was

shocked

by

the

formalism

of

the work. No-

body

had tried to

answer the

questions

why

certain

measurements

were

taken,why

they were considered significant, whether

they

were

subject

to outer

influences;

and

my

interest has since

remained

centered on

these

problems

which

must

be

solved

before the

data of

physical

anthropology

can

be

used for

the elucidation of

historical

problems.

Equally important

seems to me

the

question

in

how

far

the

functioning

of

the

body

is

dependent

upon

bodily

structure.

The

answer to

this

problem

is

the

necessary

basis

for

any

intelligent

discussion

of

racial

physiology

and

psychology.

Dr

Kroeber refers

to

the

discussion on

anthropological

methods

at

the time of

the

Americanist

Congress

held

in

New York in

1928. He

does not

quite

completely

6

Journal,

[Royal]

Anthropological

nstitute

of

Great

Britain and

Ireland,

Vol.

18,

pp.

245-72,

1889.

7

Indianische

Sagen,

pp.

341 et

seq.




6/6

DISCUSSION

AND CORRESPONDENCE

141

tell the

story

of

this incident.

The discussion had centered

entirely

around

Kultur-

kreise

and other

attempts

at

historical

reconstruction.

Finally

I

said

that I had

all

through

my

life tried to understand the culture I was

studying

as the result

of

his-

torical

growth,

but since the whole discussion had been devoted to historic se-

quences

I

had

to arise as the

advocatus

diaboli

and defend those who

sought

to

understand

the

processes

by

which historical

changes

came

about,

knowledge

of

which

is needed to

give

a

deeper

meaning

to

the

picture.

This

was

no

new

position

of

mine,

as I think has become

sufficiently

clear

from

the

preceding.

It

is

true

enough

that

in

general

the

participants

in

the

discussion did not want

to have

any-

thing

to do with the

investigation

of

processes

which seemed anathema

but

pre-

ferred

to

stick

to

their

pet

theories

which

they

considered

satisfactorily

proven.

FRANZ BOAS

COLUMBIANIVERSITY

NEW

YORKCITY

MAMMOTH OR

STIFF-LEGGED

BEAR

Dr

W.

D.

Strong' gives

a

portion

of a

Naskapi

tale about

Djakabish

including

the

adventure

of

his

slaying

the monster

Katcheetohfiskw

who

had

killed

and

eaten

his

parents.

Dr

Strong

considers

the monster

(owing

to his

large

ears, etc.)

as

remi-

niscent

of the

mammoth.

Prof F.

Speck2 gives

a

Mistassini

version

of

the

same

tale.

The name of

the hero is Tsaka'bec

and

that

of the monster is

Katci-to'-

wack'w.According

to

Speck, among

both

the

Naskapi

and

Montagnais

the animal

is

referable

to the

Ursidce.

He

further

notes

that

Katci'to'wack'w

is translatable as

Stiff-legged

Bear,

and

cites

pertinent

words

in

support

of this

etymology.

Both

of these authors seem to

have

overlooked

the fact

that

Skinner,3

had

previ-

ously

recorded

versions

from

Rupert's

House

(Tcik/pis,

KatcI'tos)

and

the

Albany

River:

in

the last variant note

the bears

who killed our

parents -which

lends

sup-

port

to

Speck's

contention. But

Skinner

as

well as

Strong

and

Speck

seems

not to

have noted that

in

Le

Jeune's

Relation

of

16374

a

very

old

variant

occurs:

the

hero

is

Tchakabech,

who

is

a

little

Dwarf:

a

bear devours

his father but

the

great

Hare

( Michtabouchiou )

devours

his

mother,

and hair

is found

in

its

belly.5

In this connection it may be pointed out that in an Ojibwa version concerning

the same hero

Tcakapgs

( The

Gnome )

given

by

the late

Dr

Jones,8

Bears-with-

Heads-at-Both-Ends

(Ai-dawa'kwag)

are the names

of

those

that slew

our

parents.

1

American

Anthropologist,

Vol.

36,

1934, pp.

83-84.

2

Ibid.,

Vol.

37,

1935, pp.

159-60.

3

Anthropological

Papers,

American Museum of

Natural

History,

Vol.

9, 1911, pp.

100-

104.

4

Jesuit

Relations,

ed.

Thwaites,

Vol.

12, p.

31

et

seq.

6 See also Ellen Russell Emerson, Indian Myths (Boston, 1884), p. 371, which work con-

tains

some valuable

notes

besides

much

trash.

6

Ojibwa

Texts

(Publications,

American

Ethnological

Society,

Vol.

7,

Part

2, 1919), p.

354

et

seq.


history and science in anthropology: a reply

Documents